6 ms·

In the US, unless you are signing a contract of some sort, then a sale is a sale. Any physical object that you simply buy at the store is yours, full stop. I d

In the US, unless you are signing a contract of some sort, then a sale is a sale. Any physical object that you simply buy at the store is yours, full stop. I don't understand the comment that you make about not owning the batteries in an electric car. If you own the electric car, then you own the batteries, that's not in question. However, manufacturers often put measures into place that make ownership less useful: -- They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object -- They might restrict availability of manuals, repair parts and other information to incentivize you to use their service facilities However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership.

vinbreau 11y ago
I agree what you say should be true, but companies are trying to change the First-Sale Doctrine. Companies like John Deer say you are licensing the tech, not buying it, thus you do not own everything in the vehicle you 'bought'. Software companies have used this logic for years and it's beginning to bleed over into hardware. Companies want you to license things and do away with ownership. I'm on your side though, I believe in the First-Sale Doctrine and do not want to see it undermined, but there's a financial incentive for companies to do away with it and they will keep trying unless we make hard rulings in cases like this one against Lexmark. Look at what Nintendo tried to do with the resale market of their game discs and cartridges.
- giaour 11y ago
  Wait, the John Deere lawsuits were about hardware? I thought they were arguing that they only licensed (and didn't sell) the firmware controlling their newer tractors. I.e., the same bullshit companies have been pulling for decades. IIRC, the original inspiration for the Free Software Foundation was a buggy, restrictively licensed printer driver.
  - vinbreau 11y ago
    Sorry, didn't mean to muddy the conversation. It's not the hardware they say is licensed, it's the necessary software used to run the machine. Either way, you don't own the entire product, only part of it, and the most essential part is what is licensed. Without the software the hardware is useless so it may as well be the hardware.
    - giaour 11y ago
      In theory, someone could write GPL tractor firmware, and I don't think anyone from John Deere could legally prevent you from replacing their locked-down firmware with GnuTractor or whatever. (Then again, IANAL, so maybe they could?) Frankly, this seems like an area where the FSF could do a lot of good and garner a lot of goodwill.
      - vinbreau 11y ago
        If Apple can void your warranty for jailbreaking I'm sure John Deere could do the same.
dikaiosune 11y ago
> They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object I'd say that's a pretty direct infringement on my ownership, but then again I've got a few tin-foil hats lying around.
rnovak 11y ago
I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with US news, but this isn't true, at least until it's decided in court. GM, John Deere, and Ford all have the opposite opinion[1][2][3] [1]http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and-gm-says-you-dont-really-own-any-vehicles-bought-from-them-you-only-have-an-implied-license-for-the-life-of-the-vehicle-to-operate-the-vehicle/ http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and... [2]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-says-that-while-you-may-own-your-car-it-owns-software-it-thanks-to-copyright.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-sa... [3]http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on-your-own-car-illegal/76702/ http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on... Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. I really do wish the US was as cut/dry as you make it seem, and I wish they cared about consumers more, but in reality, Companies get far more rights then we, as consumers, do. Edit:Formatting
- daxelrod 11y ago
  > Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. Has the 2012 DMCA jailbreaking exemption now expired? I know exemptions expire every three years, but I wasn't sure exactly when.
  - pmh 11y ago
    It will expire in late October this year if the Librarian of Congress/US Copyright Office does not renew the exemption.
  - rnovak 11y ago
    From what I understand, the exemptions only allow jailbrakeing/rooting with permission from the Manufacturer, which I highly doubt would be given from 80-90% of manufacturers
    - pmh 11y ago
      Your parent is referring to a DMCA exemption approved by the US Copyright Office in 2012. Jailbreaking phones is currently legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset"[0], while jailbreaking tablets is not. See also this timeline of the EFF's efforts in getting DMCA exemptions: https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States
TrevorJ 11y ago
>However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership. You could argue that, but you'd be going against the clear meaning of ownership over the last few hundred years.

vinbreau 11y ago

I agree what you say should be true, but companies are trying to change the First-Sale Doctrine. Companies like John Deer say you are licensing the tech, not buying it, thus you do not own everything in the vehicle you 'bought'. Software companies have used this logic for years and it's beginning to bleed over into hardware. Companies want you to license things and do away with ownership. I'm on your side though, I believe in the First-Sale Doctrine and do not want to see it undermined, but there's a financial incentive for companies to do away with it and they will keep trying unless we make hard rulings in cases like this one against Lexmark. Look at what Nintendo tried to do with the resale market of their game discs and cartridges.

giaour 11y ago
Wait, the John Deere lawsuits were about hardware? I thought they were arguing that they only licensed (and didn't sell) the firmware controlling their newer tractors. I.e., the same bullshit companies have been pulling for decades. IIRC, the original inspiration for the Free Software Foundation was a buggy, restrictively licensed printer driver.
- vinbreau 11y ago
  Sorry, didn't mean to muddy the conversation. It's not the hardware they say is licensed, it's the necessary software used to run the machine. Either way, you don't own the entire product, only part of it, and the most essential part is what is licensed. Without the software the hardware is useless so it may as well be the hardware.
  - giaour 11y ago
    In theory, someone could write GPL tractor firmware, and I don't think anyone from John Deere could legally prevent you from replacing their locked-down firmware with GnuTractor or whatever. (Then again, IANAL, so maybe they could?) Frankly, this seems like an area where the FSF could do a lot of good and garner a lot of goodwill.
    - vinbreau 11y ago
      If Apple can void your warranty for jailbreaking I'm sure John Deere could do the same.

dikaiosune 11y ago

> They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object I'd say that's a pretty direct infringement on my ownership, but then again I've got a few tin-foil hats lying around.

rnovak 11y ago

I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with US news, but this isn't true, at least until it's decided in court. GM, John Deere, and Ford all have the opposite opinion[1][2][3] [1]http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and-gm-says-you-dont-really-own-any-vehicles-bought-from-them-you-only-have-an-implied-license-for-the-life-of-the-vehicle-to-operate-the-vehicle/ http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and... [2]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-says-that-while-you-may-own-your-car-it-owns-software-it-thanks-to-copyright.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-sa... [3]http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on-your-own-car-illegal/76702/ http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on... Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. I really do wish the US was as cut/dry as you make it seem, and I wish they cared about consumers more, but in reality, Companies get far more rights then we, as consumers, do. Edit:Formatting

daxelrod 11y ago
> Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. Has the 2012 DMCA jailbreaking exemption now expired? I know exemptions expire every three years, but I wasn't sure exactly when.
- pmh 11y ago
  It will expire in late October this year if the Librarian of Congress/US Copyright Office does not renew the exemption.
- rnovak 11y ago
  From what I understand, the exemptions only allow jailbrakeing/rooting with permission from the Manufacturer, which I highly doubt would be given from 80-90% of manufacturers
  - pmh 11y ago
    Your parent is referring to a DMCA exemption approved by the US Copyright Office in 2012. Jailbreaking phones is currently legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset"[0], while jailbreaking tablets is not. See also this timeline of the EFF's efforts in getting DMCA exemptions: https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States

TrevorJ 11y ago

>However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership. You could argue that, but you'd be going against the clear meaning of ownership over the last few hundred years.